1. Transnistria is different to S Ossetia and Abkhazia in that the ethnic dimension is much less pronounced, and there is no threat to the legitimate rights of Transnistrians from the central authorities in Chisinau. 2. The only reasons the Transnistrian entity continues to exist are that (a) it promotes the business interests of a narrow group of people and (b) it promotes the perceived (but not real) interest of the Russian Federation. 3. The real interest of the Russian Federation is, however, to live at peace with its neighbours, enjoying strong trading and cultural ties. That is why Russia should fulfil its 2000 Istanbul treaty commitment to withdraw its troops and allow the peaceful reintegration of Transnistria into the Republic of Moldova. 4. The referendum you have quoted is not credible. First of all, territories such as Transnistria do not have the right to secede under international law, so the question should not have been put in the first place. Secondly, the referendum took place in conditions of manipulation of public opinion and active intimidation of voters.

Zimbru, what credibility you attach to "international law". It is a lawless world where only some countries try to create a planet with some rules of conduct, while others, feeling the advantages that the end of cold war brought them, continue to violate every international law known to man. So, your 4-point manifesto sounds as if there are logical things running the world. In the world where might is right, small entities try to get the protection under the international law, but if they cannot, they run on emotion and conflict, at times of their own volition, and at times manipulated --- knowingly or otherwise. Transdniester wants independence as they are threatened by the new ruling elite in Moldova. You cannot ascribe it just to the will of the few, the elite, the beneficiaries. After all, the incorporation in Russian Federation would not enrich this elite. They are seeking security. Today, after Kosovo, everything is up for grabs, and everything up in the air. The pressure that EU mounted on the few European countries that did not recognize Kosovo, was brutal. Spain was not even allowed to phrase its dissent the way it wished. Spain wanted to state that Spain considers this act against the international law, and EU forced them to change it "...against Spain's laws...". Remember, we are living in post-Kosovo world, which can reshape the planet more then 911. In which universe is it OK for UN to come in as a peacekeeper, and then become a midwife to a new country --- while still presumably implementing R. 1244, that is, affirmation of Serbia's sovereignty over the province! And where is it possible to grant an independence, after Kosovo's declaration of independence, Constitution and flag were designed overseas. And where the judicial system simply did not exist, so EU has brought in EULEX, the virtual army of prosecutors, judges and administrators to tame the lawless province?

Bianca, I completely agree that the recognition of Kosovo was wrong. However Russia is being abusive when it claims this as a 'precedent' for its actions in other Eastern European conflict zones. Two wrongs do not make a right, and Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia actually undermines its position on Kosovo. The sooner we get back to a world where national boundaries and territorial integrity are respected, the better.